Sunteți pe pagina 1din 21

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

SUBMITTED TO: Ms. Sushmita


SUBMITTED BY: Ms. Nidhi
ROLL NUMBER: 1632

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and above all, I thank God, the almighty for providing me this opportunity and granting me
the capability to proceed successfully. This project appears in its current form due to the
assistance and guidance of several people.

Immeasurable appreciation and deepest gratitude is extended to Ms. Sushmita Singh, the
professor of the Law of Contracts for her valuable suggestions towards this project work.

I am highly indebted to my parents for their constant support, guidance and supervision.

Appreciation is also extended to the internet and library for providing me the resources to finish
this project
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 5
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF QUANTUM MERIUT IN COMMON LAW .............................. 9
DOCTRINE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT ................................................................................. 13
THEORIES BEHIND QUASI CONTRACTS ENGLISH LAW ................................................. 17
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 19
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 20
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This project is based upon doctrinal method of research. This project has been done after a
thorough research based upon intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of the project.

Sources of Data:

The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-

1. Articles.
2. Books
3. Journals
4. Websites

Method of Writing:

The method of writing followed in the course of this research project is primarily analytical.

Mode of Citation:

The researchers have followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the course of this project.
INTRODUCTION
It actually means “as much as he deserves”. Traditionally, courts assessed a quantum of
damages, where work was performed pursuant to a contract, but no agreement was reached on
the amount, the Court would just determine what was fair. In some judicial systems, “quantum
meruit” is the court’s method of calculating damages arising from a contract, when the contract
is unclear.
THEORY OF QUANTUM MERUIT
As mentioned above, quantum meruit involves cases where someone gets a benefit while the
other party gets nothing. In Latin, this phrase means “what one has earned”. In law of contract,
this refers to the benefit or enrichment one party receives as a result of the other party’s actions.
Under the law, the theory means that another party has received an unfair benefit and thus must
provide restitution to the party who provided that benefit. Thus, Quantum meruit is a theory in
the law that requires fairness and reasonableness. The theory fosters equity of the parties and
helps to ensure that if a person provided a service or a good, that person receives the benefit of
the contract. It is an important theory in law because it allows a court to provide a fair result in
an unfair situation. Quantum meruit is the measure of damages where an express contract is
mutually modified by the implied agreement of the parties, or not completed. While there is
often confusion between the concept of quantum meruit and that of “unjust enrichment” of one
party at the expense of another, the two concepts are distinct.
For there to have been unjust enrichment, three things must be established. Firstly, the principal
must have been enriched by the receipt of a "benefit". Secondly, that benefit must have been
gained "at the contractor's expense" and, thirdly, it would be "unjust" in the circumstances to
allow the principal to retain the benefit. Needless to say, there is a good deal of law involved in
questions of "benefit", "contractor's expense", and "unjust"
DOCTRINE OF QUANTUM MERUIT IN INDIA: 1
In India, the Common Law rule has been departed from, and the Legislature in Section-70 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides for the recovery of compensation in certain cases, where a
person lawfully does anything for another without intending to do so gratuitously, and such other
person enjoys the benefit thereof. In order to come within the principle contained in the section,
two essential points have to be made out: firstly, that the person doing the work did not intend to

1
<http://journal.lawmantra.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/25.pdf>
do it gratuitously, that is, without intending to receive anything towards remuneration, and
secondly, that the other person has received the benefit from the work done. The mere
acceptance of the benefit of another’s work does not give rise to an implied promise to pay
thereof. The work must have been lawfully done with the intention of claiming something in
remuneration, and under Indian law there is also an authority to hold that it is necessary to give
the person who is sought to be made liable, an opportunity to refuse, on the principle that no man
is bound to pay for that which he had not had the option of refusing, though it may be noticed
that the decisions are not uniform, and the question is still not free from doubts.
In India, the principle was developed under section 69 and section 70 of Indian Contract Act,
1872. Within a decade of the passing of the act, it was held that the co-surety claims for
contribution was in fact a contractual term after all and the earlier cases discuss-ing its
contractual nature, it was said, were delivered before the act came into existence, when
legislation had not stepped in the plain language to give different strength and affect to certain
relations between the parties out of those moral obligations one to another a legal fiction had
grown up for implying a contract and while as learned expositions of law, they can be read with
interest and advantage for practical purposes to the point under consideration they are absolute
and irrelevant.
Claim for necessaries supplied to person incapable of contracting, or on his account
If a person, incapable of entering into a contract, or anyone whom he is legally bound to support,
is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to hiscondition in life, the person who has
furnished such supplies is entitled to bereimbursed from the property of such incapable person.
69. Reimbursement of person paying money due by another, in payment ofwhich he is interested
A person who is interested in the payment of money which another is bound by law to pay, and
who therefore pays it, is entitled to be reimbursed by the other.
70. Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act
Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not
intending to do so gratuitously, and such another person enjoys the benefit thereof, the letter is
bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or
delivered.
QUANTUM MERUIT AND EQUITY

A quasi-contract may be defined as, “a transaction in which there is no contract between the
parties; the law creates certain rights and obligation between them which are similar to those
created by a contract. “An obligation created by law for the sake of justice; specif., an obligation
imposed by law on parties because of relationship between parties or because one of them would
otherwise be unjustly enriched. It’s not a contract, but instead is a remedy that allows plaintiff to
recover a benefit conferred on the defendant.2These types of contracts are quasi contract or
restitution that fall in the third category of quasi contracts or restitution.3 The procedural term
‘quantum meruit’ has persisted and is sometimes used inexactly as a synonym for the more
general term ‘quasi contract’ which refers to any money claim for the redress of unjust
enrichment.4 Basically in other words, a contract made by law for reasons of equity with no
statement of consent is a quasi-contract. Quasi contracts bring a situation which imposes
obligations or duties upon the parties by law rather than the assent given by them to the contract
terms.

DOCTRINE OF QUANTUM MERUIT IN ENGLAND:


The term “quantum meruit” actually describes the measure of damages for recovery on a contract
that is said to be “implied in fact.” In an English case it was held by the court that the law
imputes the existence of a contract based upon one party’s having performed services under
circumstances in which the parties must have understood and intended compensation to be paid.
Therefore, further, it was held by the court in a case, that the recovery in quantum meruit is said
to be based upon the “assent” of the parties and, being contractual in nature, it sounds in law.
Thus, in Hermanowski v. Naranja Lakes Condominium No. Five, Inc.,the court held that to
recover under quantum meruit one must show that the recipient:
a.) acquiesced in the provision of services;

2
Black’s Law dictionary, 9th Edition, p. 370

3
Nallapati Pandruanga Rao v. Vempati Venkateshwara Rao, MANU/AP/1901/2014

4
E Allan Farnsworth, Contracts $2.20, at 103 (2d ed. 1990)
b.) was aware that the provider expected to be compensated; and
c.) was unjustly enriched thereby.
Causes of action commonly classified as restitutionary include the recovery of mistaken
payments and of the costs incurred during a “necessitous intervention”. 5Unlike “contract” or
“tort”, the term “restitution “also refers to the remedy provided by this category, based on the
return of something from defendant to plaintiff.6 One example of a claim would be the window
cleaner who, upon cleaning the windows of the wrong address, seeks to recover from the recipient. 7
Apart from the situation of a mistake, quantum meruit claims can also arise where a contract has
been rendered unenforceable or void. In order for the plaintiff to recover, the services must have been
provided non-gratuitously and at the request of the defendant, though “request” can include a failure
to reject the services, while knowing that payment was expected.

5
Joachim Dietrich “Restitution: A New Perspective” (1998) 4.
6
Ibid.
7
D.J. Ibbetson,” A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations” (1999) 269-271
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF QUANTUM MERIUT IN COMMON LAW

There are essentially three models for determining the quantum meruit claim which have
changed over time. In early medieval times, the integration model was used after which
separation model came into play. The most recent model has been the less than perfect contract
type model. The legislative history of these three models will be traced in this chapter.

The case of Pepper v. Burland[, remarked that in situations where the work sufficiently deviated
from the terms of the contract such that tracing the contract becomes impossible, the plaintiff
could recover the value of his labor through quantum meruit claim. However, the full implication
of quantum meruit claim became prominent in the path breaking case of Cutter v. Powell. In this
case, the defendant had entered in to a contract with a sailor that if he proceeded, continued and
did his duty as the second mate, then he would be paid thirty guineas. In a voyage, the sailor
died. The sailor’s wife sued for quantum meruit damages. There was a clash between the King’s
Bench and the Admiralty Courts. The final decision was that the plaintiff was unable to recover
on the express contract because it was a condition precedent of the contract that the whole of the
voyage be completed.

Assumpsit represented the first form of the integration model, as the origins of modern contract and
quantum meruit could be found in different applications of the same cause of action. They were
classified together as they both represented the enforcement of a promise by assumpsit, albeit that the
promise arose in different ways; expressly for the uses of assumpsit that would later become the
modern law of contract, and by implication for indebitatus assumpsit. However, the liability
produced in each was the same.

The early English legal system, after the establishment of the three central courts, was based
around a system of writs. In order to succeed, litigants had to fit the facts of their claim into the
fixed requirements of a writ, which limited the sort of claims that could be brought. One reason
for the development of new causes of action or legal doctrines by the various courts was to
attract litigants by giving them opportunities to circumvent these limitations.
The cause of action called assumpsit, which represents the common origin of modern contract
and quantum meruit, was one such development. Early English law lacked a mechanism to
enforce agreements or promises, save for the exchange of gifts or personal oaths and bonds.8

8
Seddon and Ellinghaus above n 15, 1089; Ibbetson Historical Introduction above n 7, 3-5, 28-34.
Assumpsit allowed a plaintiff to recover where they pleaded that the defendant entered into a
voluntary obligation and then caused harm by their conduct.25 Assumpsit was a useful
alternative to covenant as it did not require a sealed agreement.26 The scope of the action was
later expanded, leading to the development of the ancestors of modern contract and quantum
meruit.
One such expansion allowed for recovery from harm done by a failure to perform a promise,
which made assumpsit useful for the enforcement of agreements.9

The historical integration model is very much a creature of its time. Assumpsit and the common
counts were developed as a response to limitations and requirements that simply no longer exist in
the modern law. Even after the demise of the old causes of action, the quasi-contractual causes of
action that followed were very much modeled on the old common counts. 11510 The law of the past
should not be permitted to obscure the needs of the modern law.11 It is no longer necessary to have
mechanisms to circumvent the limitations of the writ system and so we should not revive a system
developed to do so. Another reason not to return to the historical model is that it is particularly
vulnerable to the accusation that it represents a legal fiction

The separation model


The separation model classifies quantum meruit and contract separately and holds that recovery
is not based on either an actual or an implied contract. In Australian law, the separation model
was established by the High Court decision in Pavey & Matthews v Paul, particularly the opinion
of Deane J and the joint opinion of Mason and Wilson JJ.12The matter before the High Court in
Pavey related to whether a builder could recover for building work via quantum meruit when the
operation of NSW legislation rendered an oral building contract between the parties
unenforceable.13 The NSW court of appeal, applying the integration model, denied recovery on the
grounds that the quantum meruit claim was based on, and amounted to an enforcement of, the
contract and so was barred by legislation.14

9
Paul v Pavey and Matthews Pty Ltd [1985] 3 NSWLR 114, 122
10
Baker ‘The History of Quasi-Contract in English Law’ in Cornish et al above n 2, 39-41.
11
J C Sheahan ‘Use and Misuse of Legal History: Studies from the law of Contract, Tort and Restitution’ (1997-
1998) 16 Australian Bar Review 280, 280, 290
12
(1987) 162 CLR 221
13
Ibid as per Mason and Wilson JJ at [1-3]
14
Paul v Pavey and Matthews Pty Ltd [1985] 3 NSWLR 114, 129, 133
The High Court permitted the builder to recover on the grounds that quantum meruit did not
involve the enforcement of either an express or implied contract.15 Justice Deane rejected the use
of implied contracts, the key mechanism of the historical integration model, stating that there
was no need for the law to ‘resort to the fictional promise of assumpsit’.16 Old High Court
authorities such as Turner v Bladin, which had endorsed an integration model, were overruled.17
The other key feature of the separation model outlined in Pavey was that the basis for recovery in
quantum meruit was said to lie in the law of restitution rather than the law of contract, with
liability arising from the acceptance by the defendant of the benefit of the work. 18
A logical consequence of this change to the basis of recovery is that contract and quantum meruit
are classified as separate bodies of law, with quantum meruit being part of the law of restitution
rather than quasi-contract.

The less than perfect Contract Type Model

The “less than perfect contract” model is based on the reintegration of quantum meruit into contract,
as an alternative to the separation model. The less than perfect contract model does not radically
change the practical application of quantum meruit but does have implications for how it is
conceived of by the courts, as well as for its application in hard cases, where the law may be
extended or applied to novel circumstances. Two methods for reintegrating quantum meruit into
contract have influenced the less than perfect contract model. The first method is an expansion of the
concept of contract. The ‘classical theory’ of contract focuses on contract as a voluntary form of
liability that is assumed by the parties into and distinct from non-voluntary forms of liability that are
imposed on the parties.19 The second method is to classify quantum meruit as existing on the borders
of contract, as part of the law of contract but not part of the core definition of contractual liability.
Dietrich describes such concepts as being ‘satellites’ of the core of contract law. 123 Similarly, Atiyah
describes classical contract law as a core area of a larger body of law, with other doctrines outside
that core area but still within the law of contract.124 The less than perfect contract model uses

15
Pavey & Matthews v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 at [9-11] (Mason and Wilson JJ).
16
Pavey & Matthews v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 at [10-11] (Deane J); Justice Keith Mason ‘Where has Australian
restitution law got to and where is it going?’ (2003) 77 Australian Law Journal 358, 364
17
(1951) 82 CLR 463; Pavey & Matthews v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 at [10-14] (Deane J);
18
Ibid [12 (Deane J)].
19
Seddon and Ellinghaus above n 15,1107-1110;
elements of both of these methods, expanding the idea of contract beyond the classical conception
but placing quantum meruit outside the core area.
DOCTRINE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Unjust enrichment theory played a significant role in the development of the separation model by
providing a basis for quantum meruit independent of contract. The theory attempts to explain the law
of restitution in terms of four elements.49 These elements, required for the plaintiff to recover, are:
(1): The defendant was enriched
(2): The enrichment was at the expense of the plaintiff
(3): A factor exists that makes the enrichment unjust
(4): No defense is available.

Meaning of “Unjust”:
Unjust can be termed as something which is not in accordance with the accepted standards of
fairness or justice and which is also unfair.
Meaning of “Enrichment”:
When a person gains something from another, then it is said that the person is enriched. This
enrichment can be both just and unjust.
Meaning of “unjust enrichment”:
When a person wrongfully uses other’s property at the expense of other, then it is called “unjust
enrichment”.
DEFINITIONS OF DOCTRINE OF “UNJUST ENRICHMENT”:
The doctrine of Unjust Enrichment has been explained in various different books in different
terms, like:
According to Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary:
“Unjust enrichment is where a person unjustly obtains a benefit at the expense of another. In
certain cases where money is obtained by mistake or through fraud or for a consideration which
has wholly failed, the law implies a promise to repay it.”
According to Black’s Law Dictionary:
“Unjust enrichment is the:
a) The retention of a benefit conferred by another, without offering compensation, in
circumstances where compensation is reasonably expected.
b) A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable for which the
beneficiary must make restitution or recompense.
c) The area of law dealing with unjustifiable benefits of this kind.
POSITION IN INDIA:
Unjust enrichment is another equitable form of relief that is somewhat similar but different from
quantum meruit. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 followed this line: under the heading of “Of
certain relations resembling those created by contract”, it included claims for necessaries
supplied to those without contractual capacity, claims for indemnity or contribution, claims to be
paid for the beneficial services provided with-out the intention of making any gift, claims against
the finder of goods and claims for the money paid by the mistake. It went on with certain
changes through judicial interactions and came to be based more and more on the doctrine of
restitution.
Position is explained by Section 71 and 72-
71. Responsibility of finder of goods
A person who finds goods belonging to another, and takes them into his custody, is subject to the
same responsibility as a bailee.
72. Liability of person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered, by mistake or under coercion
A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion,
must repay or return it.
These are the provisions laid out in the Indian Contract Act 1872.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Quantum meruit means "as much as deserved," and is designed to compensate someone for their
work when there is a lack of a specific agreement on payment terms. Where there is an
agreement to perform work, and an understanding that the worker is to be paid, courts will infer
an agreement to pay a reasonable sum. For example, let's suppose that I agree to hire Bill, a
commercial painter, to paint my house, but before we agree to the payment terms, Bill shows up
and does the job. Plainly, Bill has done work I wanted and I have received benefit, so he is
entitled to some amount of compensation. Quantum meruit would give him some fair amount,
e.g., cost of supplies plus reasonable local rate for a painter. The amount will likely be less than
what Bill would have gotten under a negotiated contract--he is not entitled to a windfall--but he
doesn't go away empty-handed.

Unjust enrichment covers situations in which one party profits at another's expense, and exists to
make sure that the profiting party does not retain an unjust windfall. There does not need a be a
contract to give rise to the application of unjust enrichment. For example, let's suppose Bill bids
on a contract to paint City Hall, and begins work. He receives a payment for month one, but is
told in month two that due to a city failing to follow the law in a bidding process (unbeknownst
to Bill), the project must be resubmitted for new bids. Under this situation, Bill is not likely be be
entitled to the full value of the project, but he is entitled to the full value of his work through the
time the work was halted, as the city was enriched by his incomplete work.

Unjust Enrichment alias a Restitutionary cause of action is broader than Quantum Meruit and/or
Quantum Valebant and might be considered a stand-alone cause of action, a ground for bringing
a lawsuit seeking payment in the form of money damages. If an Unjust Enrichment is received
and retained, restitution must be made to the party providing the Enrichment or benefit, and
Quantum Meruit is the way of calculating money damages to be paid to the party who provided
the Enrichment/benefit/services. Make the recipient pay QM or Q V ( as much as the provider
reasonably deserves to be paid.). When viewed thus, one might say that Quantum Meruit is a
term for the measure of damages used in Unjust Enrichment or Restitutionary causes of action.

Now we have made a rule of law. When an Enrichment, a benefit, is retained by Y who has
received valuable services or goods from X, the money damages which Y might have to pay to X
are determined by calculating Quantum Meruit— the reasonable value of the services retained by
Y but if and only if it would be unjust for Y not to have to pay for the services received, and only
if X is not a mere volunteer.

Really, Unjust Enrichment as a cause of action (a cause of action grounded in Restitutionary


principles) constitutes a field of quasi-contract law that seeks to give restitution to one who
provide goods or services for which, in equity, one should receive some quantum of payment. A
suit for restitution (often called a suit in Unjust Enrichment) contemplates a situation in which a
person has received a benefit which under the circumstances it would be unjust for him to retain
without having to pay for it. Pay what? Not the contract rate because there is no contract agreed
upon. Rather, pay the provider the reasonable value of the enrichment he has conferred upon the
recipient.

Quantum meruit applies when a request was made to perform some work, but there was no clear
agreement on the amount to be paid. The person is entitled to be paid for the work done, and the
court will determine the fair payment for that work.

Unjust enrichment applies when work was performed without an explicit request (as an example,
one might board up the windows on a neighbor’s vacant vacation home when a hurricane is on
the way). In this example, the neighbor has received a benefit, and the court will determine the
value of that benefit. This value may be capped by the amount obtained from a quantum meruit
analysis.

Both of them are theories based on equity.


THEORIES BEHIND QUASI CONTRACTS ENGLISH LAW

So far as there was not an established rule of Quasi Contractual obligation the English Lawyers
were content to enumerate the cases of the Quasi Contract for which they are provided a remedy
as to many species of “Indebitatus Assumpsit (A form of action in which the plaintiff alleges that
the defendant has undertaken a debt and has failed to satisfy it.), but they evaded the odious task
of rationalization. But as soon as the urge was felt to explore their juristic basis, controversy was
born. The quasi contract are covered in chapter V of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 under the
heading of ‘Of certain relations and resembling those created by contract’. I feel that the Indian
contract act, 1872 favors the term ‘quasi contract’ but partially as it is not a real contract because
if they would have been in support of this term, then they would have included this term in
Chapter V of the act rather than giving the heading ‘Certain Relations resembling those created
by Contract’ but they mean by this title that they are referring to quasi contracts 20. The term
‘quasi-contract’ is avoided in the chapter but this chapter is about the doctrine of quasi
contracts.21]Nothing is precisely clear about the quasi contracts. The founder of quasi contract
based on the theory of unjust enrichment was Lord MANSFIELD who explained such
obligations based upon the law as well as justice to prevent undue advantage to one person at the
cost of another. The concept was first taken up in the case Moses v. Macferlan 22. The facts of
the case are as such: Jacob issued four promissory notes to Moses and Moses indorsed them to
Macferlan, excluding by a written agreement, his personal liability on the endorsement. Even so
Macferlan sued Moses on the endorsement and he was held liable despite which he had excluded
and, therefore, sued to recover back his money from Macferlan.

He was allowed to do so. After stating that such money cannot be recovered where the person to
whom it is given can “retain it with a safe conscience”, LORD MANSFIELD continued:

A liability of this kind is hard to classify. Since it partly resembles liabilities under the law of tort
and partly it resembles contract since it owed to only a party and not a person or individual

20
K.K Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. Goel Associates, 2012 SCC Online Del 1053
21
Hari Ram Seth Khandsari v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, MANU/UP/1273/2003
22
(1760) 2 Burr 1005at p. 1012 as in cited in Pollock and Mulla, Indian Contract Act, 1872
generally. Therefore, it comes within the ambit of an implied contract or even natural justice and
equity for the prevention of unjust enrichment.

Then came the theory of implied contracts which became very popular among the courts and the
theory of Lord MANSFIELD were discarded quite often. In the case of Sinclair v.
brougham23liabilities under the name of quasi contract were taken which were against the law
and not within its ambit. So later on, it was decided that the doctrine was going against the law
and hence the doctrine of unjust enrichment prevailed over this theory after the case of Fibrosa
Spolka Akeyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson combe Barbour Ltd.24 In this case remedies arising from
such obligations neither constitute contract nor torts. They fall into category different form these
two and that is ‘quasi contract or restitution’. It was also observed that the precious theory was
against public policy and ultra vires to the law. The principle of unjust enrichment requires: first,
that the defendant has been ‘enriched’ by the receipt of a “benefit”; secondly, that this
enrichment is “at the expense of the plaintiff”; and thirdly, that the retention of the enrichment be
unjust.25

23
Sinclair v. Brougham, 1914 AC 398 as cited in ‘The Modern Law of Unjust Enrichment and Restitution’ by
Gerard McMeel on Page 25

24
Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd ,1943 AC 32 as cited in ‘The Modern Law of
Unjust Enrichment and Restitution’ by Gerard McMeel on Page 26

25
Mahabir Kishore & others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 313
CONCLUSION

Quantum meruit and unjust enrichment are both remedies, but they are distinct concepts.

Quantum meruit means "as much as deserved," and is designed to compensate someone for their
work when there is a lack of a specific agreement on payment terms. Where there is an
agreement to perform work, and an understanding that the worker is to be paid, courts will infer
an agreement to pay a reasonable sum. For example, let's suppose that I agree to hire Bill, a
commercial painter, to paint my house, but before we agree to the payment terms, Bill shows up
and does the job. Plainly, Bill has done work I wanted and I have received benefit, so he is
entitled to some amount of compensation. Quantum meruit would give him some fair amount,
e.g., cost of supplies plus reasonable local rate for a painter. The amount will likely be less than
what Bill would have gotten under a negotiated contract--he is not entitled to a windfall--but he
doesn't go away empty-handed.

Unjust enrichment covers situations in which one party profits at another's expense, and exists to
make sure that the profiting party does not retain an unjust windfall. There does not need a be a
contract to give rise to the application of unjust enrichment. For example, let's suppose Bill bids
on a contract to paint City Hall, and begins work. He receives a payment for month one, but is
told in month two that due to a city failing to follow the law in a bidding process (unbeknownst
to Bill), the project must be resubmitted for new bids. Under this situation, Bill is not likely be be
entitled to the full value of the project, but he is entitled to the full value of his work through the
time the work was halted, as the city was enriched by his incomplete work.

The doctrine of quantum meruit under law of contract is such a beautiful concept that requires
fairness and reasonableness. This concept promotes the equity of the parties and helps to ensure
that if a person provided a service or a good, that person receives the benefit of the contract. It is
a very important concept in law because it allows a court to provide a fair result in an unfair
situation. This doctrine has proved to be very helpful for Indian judicial system.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
 Law of Contracts II, RK Bangia
 Law Of Contracts, Avtar Singh
 Indian Contract Act and Specific Relief Act, a commentary, Pollock and Mulla, 7th
edition

Articles

 Jamieson, Gareth Neil, Three Models of the Place of Quantum Meruit in the Law of
Obligations (March, 19 2009). ANU College of Law Research Paper No. 09-03.
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1365026 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1365026
 Judy Beckner Sloan, “Quantum Meruit, Residual Equity in Law”, published in Depaul
Law University, Vloume 42, accessed at
http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1913&context=law-review

Websites:-

 -www.lawblog.com
 -www.legalserviceindia.com
 -www.googlebooks.com
 www. Legallyindia.co.in
 www.myspace.co.in
 -www.lawmantra.co.in